User talk:Turgidson/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

A present to mark your return

Felix tgtltge 05.jpg

Good to see you back. (If I got it right, the picture is of Felix and a golden goose, which I can only presume he obtained from Switzerland :)). Dahn 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it (and I can only presume the "quieted down" was owed to the fact that he doesn't pay them extra for that). Caragiale is developing slowly into three articles: the main one, the one in your sandbox, and the one at the bottom of this page. It looks rather chaotic for now, and I took a rather long break, but I'm working to source from Garabet in all three, and then I'll go back to the Cazimir sources (which are mainly for some details here and there). I'm guessing that I'll finish my part in about a week or so. (Although I may fade out to edit other articles - I'm planning one on Kir Ianulea). Feel free to make any additions, suggestions, or copyedits, and criticize me mercilessly.
I noticed the VT additions, and kudos. As for reshaping the second part, I was going to propose an introduction where we clarify the "camps", succession of events (down to this day) and nature of comments - for example, Shafir produces some serious criticism of VT's work (before and during his chairmanship), but takes a stand against the, shall we say, professional critics at Ziua and elsewhere (it turns out that many of VT's notable critics do the same). We should also clarify that criticism of VT has itself been the topic of controversy, and make a brief mention of the purely political responses to the report (centered on the stand-off in parliament), before indicating middle-of-the-road replies such as those of Teodorescu and Puşcaş (both of whom actually endorse VT's expertise and position, and one of whom indicates that his entire party does). I have tried to sketch out this into separate sections, but it proved a daunting task - especially given that most of yesterday's controversy has since turned into weightless foam. I would welcome any suggestion on how to approach this, if you have the time and interest. Dahn 16:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur. In the [immediate] future, I plan to start a section on his contributions, where I would move the Barbu reference as scholarly commentary on one of his works. From what I know, his works are discussed in academia because of several concepts he introduces in studying Romanian (and Soviet, and Cuban etc.) communism. Roughly, these are: the dynastic component, the necessity and importance of opposition from the left, the communist emphasis on survival at all cost (to the point of discarding dogma). In the Romanian case, there is also the concept which gave a title to one of his books: the eternity of Stalinism. Of course, at least some of this is arguably not his original contribution (at least, Shafir says it isn't), but they seem to be topics in any discussion involving VT's works. See for example here.
We seem to have agreed on sectioning the controversy part, but, if you look into it, you may agree with me that this is bound to be somewhat difficult. For one, all the disputes cover interconnected and even interlocked events - to give you one example, Gallagher begins by challenging VT's earlier work (before the report was issued), insists on mentioning issues that would have made VT seem like the ally of people who came to oppose the report (Iliescu and Voiculescu), discusses the Becali thing (which I've only seen discussed in one other source, and complicates the matter of cordial relations between VT and Dan Pavel), and then, soon after the report is issues, gives VT his full backing, claims to expose VT's other critics as people involved in a diversion, and, in the end, they come to discuss the implications of impeachment... How should one approach this intricacy without splitting the point? Shafir's polemic is very similar, with added emphasis on the fact that, when discussing his attitudes, one would already have to clarify where Ziua stood in the whole affair (since Shafir, as well as Tapalagă, cut off their relations with the paper at a particular stage in the controversy). And then there's this and this.
What I considered doing was to headline the section with a paragraph or two (or three) on the dramatis personae and the succession of events down to the referendum and even after. We could then reshape it into several sections - one on the reaction of political parties (therein, I would tend to include a brief mention of the PRM's show in parliament); Gallagher and Shafir and Liiceanu; the press reaction (Ziua, but also the Tricolorul lawsuit); commission membership (Goma and Antohi). These are just tentative proposals, and, although this seems to be the least repetitive order, the succession is quite arbitrary.
I'm also going to try and source more on his actual political opinions. Never mind that he was never a Trotskyist (not that it would matter much if he was), but I was able to find comments on the fact that he has since become a person firmly on the right, and a committed pro-American (which is consistent with some of his comments on various issues of the day, as well as with his field of employment in Philly). I don't personally agree with all that such a stance implies, but I think that it is bordering on calumny to let it appear as if he is still making his comments as a Marxist. Plus, this should add him to the long line of people who start from the anti-totalitarian left and end on the quasi-libertarian right (one of the comments you made at some point on the more intelligent of Trotskyists leads me to believe that you are aware of such parallels).
Looking forward to your comments, Dahn 19:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The comments I was able to find were also from Dan Pavel, but they have either been taken off the net or I cannot seem to replicate my earlier search (I might have the link saved into some text file, as I occasionally do that for interesting material - hopefully, it wasn't one on his many pieces in Formula As, as these would be taking us into the grayish area of WP:RS). When I was trying to find them just now, I bumped into this (which is great material for both his scholarship and his political opinions).
What I have in mind is creating a section titled "Views and contributions" or something of this flexible nature, with a final paragraph (or final paragraphs) discussing his purely political stances. I would however move his support for the Iraq intervention (or, in any case, the bulk of it) into some part of the controversy, based on the fact that it is presented as such by WshP - I could then see if there are more sources on who criticized him (Americans? Romanians? both?) and why/when/how. For now, I was able to find an essay at the Wilson Center, where he discusses Eastern European reactions to the Iraq War (unfortunately, it's a doc file). And we could perhaps "tailor" the introductory paragraph I proposed to outline all the notable debates he has been involved in.
I have looked into the CfD you mention following the message you got here, but I know next to nothing about the merits of the subject (though, I must say, the related illustration insults my intelligence :)). I lean towards keeping the tidbits in this project, but listifying shouldn't be that bad (on the plus side, lists are harder to modify and lose track of). Dahn 21:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we agree. I'll check back on the article soon (I'm concentrating on my Caragiale edits at the moment), but I'm already looking for additional material. On google books, it is hard going through texts that use him as a reference and texts that actually discuss him, but I've already found some stuff in Deletant's Communist Terror.... I can only hope Mr. Roncea and the odd vandal leave the article be in the meantime :). Dahn 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
AHA! (Which also implies that he is prolly not right-wing; there's more stuff here, but I don't even want to begin considering that site a reliable source) Dahn 23:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I very much agree with all your points. What I took into into consideration was that, right or wrong, the Euston Manifesto (which seems to have been the beacon for this one) is generally thought of as exclusively left-wing. And yes, the concepts are especially problematic when one considers the Europe vs. US tagging: I don't think that the American definition of anything statist as left-of-center communicates much to the European experience, and I can safely say that many things perceived as "leftist" in the US are middle-of-the-road in other countries. And then there are the potentially incomprehensible terms exchanged, such as "liberal" and "conservative" (indeed, Lieberman!)...
If that manifesto does anything, however, it is to amend my perception that he was himself included by the narrow US definition of "rightist" - note the reference to Roosevelt (Ann Coulter flips her wig!). He probably doesn't fit into any conservative or right-wing libertarian camp (as I was ready to assume earlier): if that could mean anything in the rest of the world, I guess it makes him pretty left-of-center by US standards. [Btw, just to take a poke at "my own camp", I don't know how many "dictators on the right and left" Roosevelt battled when he was joking with Stalin about the number of Wehrmacht officers one needed to shoot - which Stalin took pretty seriously, as it turns out...] Dahn 07:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse the delay - I was mostly off wiki these past days. I do actually agree with the assessment, and would also like to add that I consider left and right to apply selectively and with a large grain of salt. In fact, the cases you mention, though very relevant in themselves, only touch a part of the whole issue: they relate with ideological extremes, which are generally easier to locate. But if one is to look, for example, at the late 19th century leftist movements attacking "bourgeois" radicalism, and note the intervention of people such as Georges Valois, or deal with Dobrogeanu-Gherea's surprising attacks on National Liberal protectionism, the concepts of "left" and "right" would only be useful to set up position that one would be forced to amend in one breath. Without digressing further, I think that the article on VT should not take his signing of the manifesto as indicative of him being left wing or right wing or centrist: it is important to mention that he signed it (which is relevant with or without implications), whereas interpretations of where he stands could be based on informed commentary in sources (just in case we do find someone actually saying "he's to the left" or "he's to the right"). "Off the record" (since I do enjoy this conversation), I think that he did go through some sort of ideological change, but one cannot be sure where it got him :). In any case, I'm glad Livezeanu came up, since the article on her proved to be a small sandbox for what we could do there. Dahn 19:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - but I could add that there is a starting point, but for sure not always, if and where the persons use those labels as a means to identify themselves. In that case, I go with "God'll sort 'em out" ;).
There is a side note to the far right and far left debate, especially considering the 1930s. It seems that people with otherwise respectable libertarian or, for lack of a better word, conservative views tend to define everything on the statist side of the fence as "socialistic". This strikes me as a reductio at Hitlerum - not because it would be groundless, but because it is used to inflame passions on the left. There are two reasons that stand in contrast to this view: one is that if, for example, Mussolini begun by praising Marx and Lenin, he did aim for something independent and different, and in this context Lenin and Marx have nothing to be blamed for (just as Marx has little to be blamed about when it comes to Lenin - given that he advised against everything Lenin was to do etc.); the other is that not all left, and not even all socialists, have been statist or monopolizing (though I fully agree that most who weren't had a huge and basic contradiction to solve if they were to launch into anything - that between collectivism and liberty). In addition, no matter how debased the concepts of [far] left and [far] right have always been, I can only agree that fascism was a mutation of socialism into some other realm (it wasn't even the first mutation of its kind, and people like Sorel are responsible for that "interesting" twist). People forget that, back when the direct predecessors of fascism were emerging, liberalism and/or laissez faire were minority concepts outside the Anglo-Saxon realm. At the time, the main issue tormenting European minds was who should the state favor...
Indeed (though I'm not in a rush to add it there...) Dahn 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Indeed, the Marx-to-Duce link would have to be a very loose one, but the Marx-to-Lenin one follows closely in that ranking. Several of Lenin's core theories were Marxist no-nos, and he developed them while clashing with a more powerful and, one would have to say, more orthodox Marxist faction. Even his country of choice was notoriously deemed unsuited for revolution by Marx.

This is not to say that Marxism is free of aberrations, and that anything built on it would not potentially lead to a very similar place - though, granted, one would have to try and discern which of the many contradictory things Marx argued for was more Marxist than the other. To give you an analogy: we can safely say that building a political system on Nietzsche's theories would most likely result in bloodshed, but the Hitler-Mussolini claim to accurately reflect Nietzsche's theories is unverifiable and, well, libelous.

I don't recall having read a text where VT would discuss this exact notion, but his personal transition, his treatment of various socialist groups in conflict (for instance, the PSD vs the PCR), and a quote in one of Pavel's texts above (about Marxism being compromised, unlike Marx), indicate to me that he too separates the responsibilities when it comes to the Leninist and the non-Leninist left.

Regarding your addition to teh VT article: I suggest we eventually merge that into a section on his work (perhaps like: "what book x is about. what y says about book x"). This is because, for example, both Gallagher and Shafir assess some of his books in their otherwise unrelated debates, and because the text on his works would also have to cite critical appraisals. But, yes, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it :). Dahn 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

About M&L: Here is a little debate between three of the usual suspects on this fascinating subject. Maybe we should have a free-for-all on this at some point? (BTW, what's wrong with UB, besides the fact that it's in Muntenia??) In the meantime, back to the more mundane task of improving the VT & related articles: I've been adding some stuff on scholars that seem to be somewhat related professionally to him. Maybe some of this can be put in better context? Turgidson 17:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry: it took me a while to notice that you had replied here. To tell you the truth, I had noticed some of that discussion beforehand. Still, I don't want to get tangled into ideological debates with Anonimu: I find little merit in his opinions on the matter, and I have to say that others have already walked down that road he is taking, with more style and panache. Granted, it's a step up from endorsing Romanian communism :). Also, I very much agree with Biru's position: indeed, one cannot say how Marx would have reacted to Lenin, especially considering that, by the time Lenin was in his prime, other Marxists were busy portraying him as a usurper. Again, I'm not saying that Lenin's system is anti-Marxist, and Marx has a responsibility for having provided these guys with at least some of the instruments they used to destroy the world. But the responsibility is symbolic, and the legacy self-contradictory; in any case, the link is not as direct as the one between Lenin and Stalin (for all the energy Trotskyists and others have invested in erasing that link, there is no Stalin without a Lenin). (And I have no idea what his UB comment was supposed to mean.)
I'll soon come up with a sketchy expansion in the VT article, which we could develop further. Dahn 15:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

wikilinks

If you add wikilinks to non-existent BLPs, why not actually write the bio? Otherwise a link to the page on Alexander-Spanier cohomology might suffice for the moment. Mathsci 13:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories by Erdos numbers

User:Mikkalai/By Erdos contains a very raw list made from remnants of categories and the log of the bot which implemented the deletion you opposed. Please join the discusion here to decide how to proceded. A clandestinely proud Erdos-Number-3-wikipedian `'Míkka 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Erdos Number categories

Recently, as you know, the categories related to Erdos Number were deleted. There are discussions and debates across several article talk pages (e.g. the Mathematics WikiProject Talk page. I've formally requested a deletion review towards overturning the deletion, at this deletion review log item. Pete St.John 21:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Names in citations

At homotopy groups of spheres you have expanded many of the initials to full names. I was being careful to list names exactly as they appeared on the papers; are you following that? (Please reply here rather than on my talk page.) --KSmrqT 00:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that that was what was meant -- I was trying for a uniform format, with all names in full, as much as possible, since I think that that's the most informative. But if there are other considerations in play, and/or a policy or a consensus that having names listed exactly as in references takes precedence over uniformity of style in a given article, or completeness of information, I'll listen to it, and go with it if the case is compelling. Turgidson 02:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RoAF helicopter crash

Thanks for your help in this and for adding sources - that's really usefull. Also, see my comments here: User talk:BillCJ; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Racism from user:Anittas

Hi Turgidson, this is not the first time the user manifested racism, but take a look here: [1], this collaborated with "Muntenians are a different race of mammals" -- depending on how the RfC on user:Anonimu is resolved I think I will open a RfC on Anittas. I just wanted to let you know... -- AdrianTM 15:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Biru...err, I mean, Turgidson. Sorry, I made a copy-and-paste. Turgidson, see my reply to Adrian. My comment is sourced. I don't understand why he thinks it's a racist thing to say that Bucharestneans have Asian influence. Is he implying that it would be a bad thing? In that case, he's being racist. Perhaps we should start a RfC on him. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Drop it or you're going to loose Ani! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.219.193.42 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for support. -- AdrianTM 02:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Surnames

Thank you for hunting them down (I had forgotten how many were around). Do you think we should have a single format for them? I mean, I had created them as disambiguation pages, and they were later turned into articles on their own - I don't object to that system, though I see its limitations, but I wonder if all pages should perhaps look like that. I.e.: should we drop the disambiguation tag? should we use the surname tag (which, for some annoying reason, also makes the articles part of the generic and currently redundant category "Surnames")? Dahn 19:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have stuck with simple disambiguation, precisely because I saw some of the problems you mention at the time I started editing these, and there are also other issues to consider (I'll expand on them below). However, if this (rather short-sighted) system was imposed on wiki, I guess I can work with it. That said, I have a couple of proposals. For starters, it seems we agree on the double-level categorizing being counterproductive: for all the merits the "surname" template has in clarifying what the page is about, we should remove it from every page in the new category.
I also agree with you on the "develop or disambig issue" - if and when, then, yes, we will expand. One of the issues I mentioned revolves around this point. Let's say we get four persons who are notable, but who share an odd surname with no particular history to it: what is the chance of this being an article?
I would go with separate pages for "Niculescu" etc. - though a single one would group Niculescu/Nicolescu/Niculescu.
Personally, I am in complete disagreement with the inculcated habit of having articles for given names with long lists of people who share that given name - aside from monarchs and the likes, that cannot be anything but unencyclopedic. That said, I would create articles on surnames and explain their original use as a given name somewhere in the article. As for the list: Ion Ion under Ion, Gheorghe Ion under Ion, but Ion Gheorghe under Gheorghe.
Another possible solution to several problems is this: turn lists like Ion (name) into articles that would focus on explaining all sort of things about the name (origin, variants, monikers, cultural icons etc) - btw, isn't Ion also a Gaelic name?; create an Ion (surname) or, just to be sure things don't get mixed, an Ion (Romanian surname) that would focus mainly on disambig purposes for people with the same surname, and briefly summarize the etymology; link both to the Ion (diambiguation) page (turning "Ion (name), the Romanian equivalent of John" into "Ion (name), the Romanian equivalent of John, and Ion (Romanian surname), a surname based on it"). This could then be adapted, mutatis mutandis, to most other such names - for example Toma, which I was tempted to create using this system earlier today (note that Toma is also a Japanese name!), so I was definitely going to go with "Romanian name" or "Romanian surname" (though, for the given name, I was simply going to link to Thomas - which I still think is for the best in that case). In my view, this sort of "segregation" could also be applied to pages in the "Romanian surnames" cat that currently look really weird: for one, I would turn Tanase into: "Tanase may refer to:/Tanasi, a Cherokee town near present-day Vonore, Tennessee/Tănase, a Romanian name" (btw, have you perchance seen this abomination?).
One problem I find especially tough is the issue of minority names, especially those that are transliterated from another language and their transliteration sticks. Take for instance "Moscovici": four notable people have share that surname, and they're all Romanian-born (except for Pierre). The suffix is unmistakably Romanian, but does this mean the name has become Romanian, or is a local variation of "Moscovich" (which itself is of many origins)? Or is it that, given this Romanianized form it has, "Moscovich" itself can be considered a Romanian name?
Another issue is the linking to these pages. In the Caragiale sandboxes, I came to deal with the name he uses (as I'm sure you noticed); do you think we should make the surnames into bluelinks/redlinks there and elsewhere? Dahn 04:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, please excuse my tardiness, and thank you for all the careful copyedits on the various articles that got me distracted. As I have said, I will accept and endorse any solution you come up with a la longue - they all seem equally valid and none is without its share of problems (all workable, but all in need of a common approach). In the meantime, I did implement my solution for Tănase, as I pictured it would not be an impediment to any of the possible ways out of the current confusion - I would recommend doing something similar for pages like Balan. In the meantime, it also seems like there is a solution (loophole?) to the double-level category - a weird one nonetheless. I also support the idea of having a page on surnames, though, as you may remember, we were pondering an -escu article which we would have to consider in relation to that (separate article? redirect?). All in due time.

I'm still wandering around aimlessly - blame it on the fatigue (the proverbial wikiwall...). It is high time I lived up to my promises, but I'm yet to cover ground on the VT issues, and Caragiale keeps calling me. Well, it has to be said: having tried to rearrange the former article and getting annoyed by the aforementioned intricacy each time around, I was not that keen on trying my hand at it again really soon; with Caragiale, I stumbled upon a section of Cazimir's book which requires some important restructuring in two sandboxes, and it would require more attention than I can spare at the moment :). I'm going to get there eventually. Dahn (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Homotopy groups of spheres

Don't worry about editing the article or the citation format. If there is a revert to use the Harvard format, I will restore your edits. I will also ensure your citation style is consistent with whatever decision is reached. Geometry guy 21:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't pay attention to the debate about the citation formats, so I'm a bit at a loss what to do with that. I put in a first approximation of what I wanted to add, and would like to take a break now -- could you please check the format, and see what needs to be done to make it "standard"? BTW, I'm not sure whether to add a doi id when it points to the same page as the one to which the url field points to. Also, back to the substance: would it be worth expanding more on that braid stuff? It may take the article too far afield, but on the other hand, it's kind of fun, I think. We'll see. Turgidson 21:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. The "standard" for citation is being discussed at the moment. I just wanted to reassure you that I will endeavour to preserve the content you contribute, no matter what the outcome is about citation style. As for DOIs, I use them systematically in real life, but am not sure that Wikipedia has cottoned on to them. By all means add them, though. As for substance, if such expansion takes the article too far afield, it could always be used to generate a subarticle. As you say, we shall see. Geometry guy 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Multam' ---- Cezarika f. (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny comment in that RfC

"You can repeat that to youself so you can sleep well during the night, buy you know very well you ain't right." I think this is really funny, considering that I've been taunted in a similar way by another well known editor... for the record, I think you are right and we'll see this very soon. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for a Romanian proverb

Hi, I see that you like proverbs, I'm a great fan of them too. I think that Romanians have a proverb on the lines of "don't wrestle with pigs because they don't mind the mud" or "because they are used with the mud" do you know the correct version? Or is this an English one? I'm a little bit confused. Thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a great idea to have a Category:Romanian proverbs Wow, This. Is. Great. didn't know it. Maybe we can work on this proverb category, I'm also interested in equivalency of proverbs across cultures. -- AdrianTM (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The equivalent for the proverb you're asking about, Adrian, is "Dacă te bagi în troacă, te mănâncă porcii". Dahn (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's it. So, would a Category:Romanian proverbs be appropriate for English Wiki? -- AdrianTM (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think It's a good idea to start with the original ones and provide both literally translation and a rough equivalent proverb in English. How is it better to procede so these won't get deleted, should we create the category and couple of articles at a time? (sorry I'm not very used with Wikipedia policies and practices) -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

OK then, let's start some collaboration in a sandbox for 2-3 interesting proverbs. Maybe Dahn will want to help... have to go for a while, I'll be back. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. First, let me just propose a couple of things, which you are of course free to reject as an alternative. The main problem here involves notability. I'm not saying that the subject is not notable, but I think you can agree with me that it would be difficult to persuade users here of just how notable at least some Romanian proverbs are, meaning that you may end up losing the results of your work. An additional problem is correspondence: above, you discuss the fact that some proverbs have equivalents in English - however, this may actually be true for all Romanian proverbs, depending on whether you consider meaning ("the same sense") or "grammar" ("it is the same, only 'leopard' is 'wolf' and 'spots' is 'fur' "). This may mean that you leave the door open for mass and rather unregulated mergers - how will you convince a user, or even yourselves, that there is/isn't a significant difference to take into into consideration?
To me, the best solution is, at least as a starting point, an article on Romanian proverbs. It will assuredly have: appropriate length, self-evident relevancy, potential for expansion into "daughter" articles on the individual proverbs (if this should prove necessary, that is). It will also not prevent you or anyone from adding examples listed there as equivalents into articles on English proverbs, or adding the equivalent English proverbs as variants there (without the possibility of a merger hanging over as Damocles' sword). That said, I'll leave the decision to you gentlemen. Dahn (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your points and I think it's a good idea to have one article Romanian proverbs, do you want to start colaborating here? I hope to start something there soon, but I will be kind of busy these days... BTW, I had a request in my talk page to review Romania for GA normalization, but because I'm busy (and my English sucks) I had to decline, do you (Dahn and Turgidson) think you can lend a hand over there? Thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at my sandbox and make suggestions (or if you have time edit it). Thanks. -- AdrianTM 07:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, do you think that's the way to go, any comment on the structure? I'm thinking that's better to start the page and just let people contribute... I only need references to cover the basic requirements... -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean, I would like to have original Romanian proverbs that don't have very close equivalents, but even those less original are good to have in that page -- if, for example, somebody does a research about "universal proverbs" or "universal popular wisdom" those would be pretty useful... -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just found out that that page was deleted once [2] :( -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Email

Would you mind activating your email?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid it still doesn't work. You need to verify your email address; see WP:EMAIL.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu

You may want to list yourself on the list of participants. Will (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are involved, yes, you can add yourself. I only put K, Biru and Istvan because I know they've dealt with him before. Will (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Częstochowa

Category:Częstochowa has no subcategories, but of course it should. Go ahead and create it - similar to Category:People from Katowice.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 18:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Securitate

Thank you for your interest in an article I have just created, List of Senior Securitate Officers (because I could not fit right away the info into Securitate). It might or it might not make sense to have a separate article. If you are interested, feel welcome to edit it/them (not urgent), and to use these pictures [...deleted them all, to stop bots from deleting them one-by-one...], or any of the pictures on my user page (in fact I put them exactly so that people can use them in different articles). I'm not claiming they are very good. But they are better than nothing.  :Dc76\talk 20:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

  • probably some of the material can go back and forth from/to the respective biographies, and the "parent" article on the Securitate (as well as related articles) Absolutely. Obviously, we do not need the list twice. Maybe the organization of securitate in 1948 can go to Securitate, while List of senior Securitate officers can be reduced to more or less an alphabetic list. The reason I contacted you was to ask your oppinion on this and related issues.
  • what about the personal data about those officers and leaders of the Securitate -- how much of that is necessary and/or appropriate in such a list In my personal opinion, the 7+4 leaders (note that already Draghici or Georgescu, although leaders, were normally the superiors of Securitate chiefs, not themselves members of securitate - analogous to Heyndrich and RSHA) should have 1-2 lines. The rest - just the name. But this is just the opinion I have at this point, without hearing other people's arguments.
  • I personally think it's more important to get to the bottom of what happened, and describing in detail the mechanisms and structures of that repressive apparatus, than to get bogged down in what are, arguably, side issues of personalities. Don't get me wrong -- I still think it's important to analyze personal stories, and pinpoint individual responsibility -- but maybe that's best done in the individual articles, where one can hash out those details. In a list like the one you initiated (or in a similarly broad article), I would concentrate on the general themes, important connections, etc, keeping in mind readability, and organization of info in an easier-to-follow format. Absolutely agree. Don't worry, I am not getting you wrong. In fact, 50% of what I uploaded initially would be better placed in other articles, and in better formultation. In fact, I changed my oppinion about this to the one you hold between the moment I compiled the info and the moment I uploaded the article, but was to lazy to change everything on friday.
  • Now, one also needs some good sources for such a project -- it would be very good to have something there in a References and/or External links section, for other people to consult. Sighet Memoral would obviously be one sourse. There are many books they bring, but generally to document pieces and details, little to no good overview of the entire Securitate's work. There is a book that Humanitas printing house has released on Saturday - the final report of Basescu's presidential commission (see Sabina Fati's editorial in Romania Libera, from Saturady). I intend to buy it. Now that is a very good sourse. Do you want a copy?
  • I kind of given up on adding pics. Well, let's see how to properly comment the one of Teohari Georgescu, and then we will know how to upload in the future. I had some of my pictures also deleted, but those that were deleted I mostly just copied from internet. Now, these I personally took, with museum's permission. (Unfortunately, the battery of my camera died 1/4 of the way in, b/c I forgot to recharge it, so I did not take many, and only at home I realized that one also has to have talent and quite some technical skill to take good photographs.) They are available in the museum and I am sure in other places for anyone to see. My intention is to release to the public all the rights I have as the person who physically took that reproduction, and to make the picture(s) widely available for everyone who intends to use it/them fairly and with good faith. And I would like to push it (time permitting) to the limits of Montesqueu's principle "what is not explicitely forbidden, is allowed". Obviously, I do not intend to get stubborn and ask for an explicite mention of that picture, and a legal sentence "any picture taken in Romania after 1907 should be considered copyrighted and never reproduced without explicite permission" is enough, but I want to see that sentence... b/c I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the law is not so restrictive.  :Dc76\talk 15:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for intruding, but the Final Report is actually available online. Dahn (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I need to think some of this through, myself. Clearly, the format and the purpose of that list (and where to put it, and how) needs to be carefully analyzed and discussed, before investing a huge amount of time editing and improving it. I'll see what I can do when I get a chance, but let's continue for a while the discussion on the talk page there, to hash things out. In the meantime, yes, I intend to look again at the Final Report on what it says on this (haven't done that recently, I must admit). Turgidson (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"preponderance "

What "preponderance " are you talking about. What works on the subject have you read to judge? --Irpen (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Irpen. Regarding your question, "What "preponderance " are you talking about. What works on the subject have you read to judge?" -- I take it you refer to my recent edits on the Holodomor article. I was simply referring to the citations already in the text:

  • U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, "Findings of the Commission on the Ukraine Famine", Report to Congress, Washington, D.C., April 19, 1988
  • US House of Representatives Authorizes Construction of Ukrainian Genocide Monument
  • Statement by Pope John Paul II on the 70th anniversary of the Famine
  • HR356 "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the man-made famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933", United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., October 21, 2003

These statements and resolutions—together with the fact that "the parliament of Ukraine and the governments of 26 other countries recognized the famine to be such", mentioned later in the lead—sound like rather strong statements defining the Holodomor as genocide, certainly not something to be characterized as "sometimes", which seems rather dismissive in the context. Without going into a counting came (who said how many times what), I think "oftentimes" is more appropriate there. Any reason why not? Turgidson (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any grounds to judge that the use in the documents above amounts to "preponderance"? I asked you the question about the works you read on the subject for a reason. The scholarly state of the art is by no means one way or the other. And we should not make an article present this debate as the mainstream view vs a minority view. There is nothing of that sort. That said, I repeat my question. What works on the subject have you read? --Irpen (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is nothing in the WP rules that I know of that requires me to answer that kind of question, or that would predicate my making an editorial judgment in an article, based on an answer that you would deem satisfactory. How much I read, or how much I know on a given subject, is my own business; what counts here is what the sources say, and what's the best way to interpret them. And I think I made my case on that. Turgidson (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, so I take it that you learn on the subject from this very article then. Anyway, you need a source that would say that such "preponderance" exists to make such judgment as your own conclusion that these citations constitute "preponderance" is not enough. That source would better be scholarly. I assure you that such source does not exist but you a free to show me wrong by finding one. Until then, please do not restore your own judgment into an article. Thank you. --Irpen (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

All else aside, your effort to tidy article up and improve the text flow is appreciated. My English is better than some of the paragraphs written by different editors but not good enough to not leave copyediting to others. In fact, I go ask native speakers to copyedit articles I've written all the time. Thanks again, -Irpen 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing. Turgidson 02:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A star for you

You deserve this to balance out Anonimu and Anittas. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dahn

Please look at this edit of Dahn and tell me your opinion: is this edit improving or not the quality of the Wikipedia article? You may also understand some conspirational theories regarding the friendship between CIA analysts and Romanian fascists.--MariusM 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

O chestie pentru care merită luptat cu unghiile şi dinţii (şi pentru care s-a şi murit în decembrie 1989) e respingerea cenzurii. Fascismul, sau legăturile cu fasciştii (ceea ce pentru unii de aici e cam tot aia) este doar pretextul pentru cenzură. Cazi în capcana de a găsi justificări cenzurii, iar cînd e vorba de libertatea de exprimare nu trebuie cedat nici un milimetru. Am văzut în ultimele zile destule minciuni, răstălmăciri şi rea-credinţă din partea unui editor pe care înainte îl respectam. Poţi judeca singur dacă filmele alea au ceva fascist în ele, şi dacă sînt relevante pentru articolul acela "Listă a filmelor despre revoluţia din 1989". De altfel, nici nu înţeleg relevanţa caracterului sitului respectiv. Prin definiţie un articol ca "Lista filmelor" doreşte să cuprindă toate filmele pe acest subiect, dacă prin absurd ar exista un film fascist despre revoluţia din 1989 şi ăla ar trebui inclus în listă, lista aceea nu stabileşte care filme sînt bune sau nu şi nu face diferenţieri ideologice. Similar, List of books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 include toate cărţile care s-au scris pe acest subiect, există acolo cărţi xenofobe, antisemite, pro-securiste şi complet tîmpite, ceea ce nu înseamnă că nu trebuie menţionate. Se răstălmăcesc politicile Wikipedia în scopuri deloc nobile, în nici un caz în scopul creşterii calităţii articolelor Wikipedia.--MariusM 22:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Victims of Communism Memorial

Turgidson, I strongly disagree with this revision. I don't understand why you're calling it a "blog"...the World Socialist Web Site has an article here which very clearly refers to it as an "online news and information center". You can't justify removing it by calling it a "blog" if that's the kind of site it is...so please be fair by doing one of these things: Allow the link to be inserted, or correctly justify your addition without reffering to it as something it isn't. We have to have both sides of the argument, therefore the rules of WP:NPOV apply to you as much as anyone else. Thanks, Sporker (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbilian

Hm. I'm actually okay with either, but, at the time, I was going with what seemed to be the trend and I made the ultimate decision based on what encyclopedias use - per the 1978 dictionary: "Barbu, Ion (pseud. literar al lui Dan Barbilian) etc." Weirdly enough, the encyclopedia (which I don't plan to use for anything other than this sort of info) says almost nothing about his scientific career - it's one phrase compared to six or seven for his literary work, and "Barbilian spaces" doesn't make it in that article.

From my part, you could ask an admin to move it back: I'll just work around it. And, yes, it is in need of an expansion, but I'm all over the place right now and that would be downright exhausting (I cannot name a more complex poet in Romanian literature). I am willing to give it a try sometime soon, because I have some good sources around - I just bought Paul Cernat's latest book, and it is very, very detailed (who knew, for example, that Barbu published a risqué poem in Contimporanul, and allowed it to be signed by Vinea so as not to lose his job at the Uni?). And gosh, I still haven't even answered your earlier post, and I still left AdrianTM's question hanging. Dahn (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: It's been two years... I can't believe it. Dahn (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. Dahn (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you did an excellent job. Personally, in the lead, I would expand the text to cover her role in WWII in more than a sentence, perhaps a sentence grouping all the countries she lived in, her social work in Romania, and then something about her flight from the country, the nationalization of her social ventures, honors she received abroad, and maybe even something about the MacCarthy affair. Not in this order, but in any one you feel is best justified. I would have given it a hand, but I don't want to be imposing. (However, at this point at least, I cannot see a lead longer than two small paragraphs or so.) And, yes, we ought to have an article on the 1940 earthquake eventually. Cheers, Dahn (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
An unrelated issue: Romanian Communist Party currently uses two sets of dashes. There's "—" and there's " — ". The former is only used in the first section. I was never sure about which one is better, and, back in the day, I used the latter (which may be a wrong choice after all). Still, if this is not improper, I would prefer changing the former to the latter, because there is much less work to do in hunting them down and changing them. If this is a no-no, then, by all means, I'd go and change the others. But I would prefer the easier way out just in case it is not. Dahn (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dracula story seems absurd, if you ask me. I don't know of any other male descendants except Mihnea III, who died while pursuing the career of a rebel. Seems I remember wrong, as Radu Mihnea was also a[n illegitimate] descendant of Vlad's, but, anyway, that should be the end of that line. Plus, there are authors such as Djuvara who indicate that there is absolutely no way one could take most claims of lineage from the 18th century onwards to be true. This is because the boyars started discovering it as an asset, and began drawing up their own genealogies or adopting whole families as their own, because boyar registers were messed up, and ultimately because legitimacy per se was irrelevant at any point in medieval history. Now, they might actually be related to Dracula in some collateral way, or even through some obscure female descendants, but then again so may be every person who belongs to an aristocratic family in Romania, and perhaps people who are not even aware that they do.

I actually dealt with this before, when a user created an article on Brianna - I took it to AfD, because her notability borders on zero, and it was deleted. The article there took the claim at face value; I double checked, and it seems that there is no Romanian-language source in which this exact claim would be mentioned (not even one where she would mention it, making it even more likely that this was a publicity stunt). In the meantime, I see that there are some sporadic mentions of her claiming to be merely "a descendant". Also, is there a source that would trace such claims to any moment before Brianna Caradja started voicing it? It's a pity for the hook, but the GUT may not be salvageable.

On the mdashes: fair enough. I'll be dropping the spaces. I won't be using the template, though, as it just looks like overkill to me. I think it is actually intended to stop bots from "copyediting" what shouldn't be copyedited, but I'll leave the guys who actually come up with the templates make up their minds before I start using it (if ever). Dahn (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We've got to stop agreeing so much :). I did not see the movie, but I did read the book many years ago (nice plot, but I found Kundera's style, well, unbearable). Dahn (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
She usually is very good, so, although I'm no fan of the latest trends in French cinema, I have no reason to doubt it. I took a glance at what the lead does mention, and it seems like it only records the pop culture/Americana side of her career. Let's say it's okay that do away with all her French movies in the lead (not to mention her awards...), but why on Earth would they then mention the utter failure that was Chocolat? It's like headlining Johnny Depp with "You might remember him as Willy Wonka". (You guessed it: I'm a Troy McLure fan.) Dahn (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
To stay within the poem you're quoting, Vlad would have to deal with the entire PNL first ;). And that's quite a task! But yeah, there's also the one about the Windsors being related to Vlad, which is very much like the Săvescu's claim that the Ainu are Dacians. Dahn (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I dare dream of an article on Scrisoarea a III-a. Just think of all the interesting things Eminescu is referencing... Dahn (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew I forgot one question unanswered (well, I didn't actually know, or else i would have replied sooner...). According to one theory, ILC's grandfather got his family name from Ioan Gheorghe Caragea, for whom he worked as a cook. Now, the source doesn't clarify this, and I have little knowledge of Balkan suffixes, but it could happen to be a derivative of "oglu" ("Caradja-oglu", perchance?) or some Greek particle indicating belonging to the Caradjas. Dahn (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

While I share the general feelings about today's PNL, and was partly hinting that way as well, there is some more concrete stuff to look into, including in the lyrics you mention. See for example my expedition into the realm of the weird. By today's standards, Eminescu was just asking for a lawsuit :D. (Who did they send to the EP after all? Is it Dăianu? Rejoice then: it could have been Relu Fenechiu...) Dahn (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you. I hope you don't mind, but I added two diffs to the DYK entry - in theory, they are required for old articles that have been submitted as a result of expansion (I admit I have not checked to see if they use them any more, but they can do no harm, and probably serve in case someone notes that it is an old article without going through the trouble of checking if and how it was expanded since). Dahn (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And, well, Judt's article gets pretty annoying here and there as far into it as I went (especially the Brianna-related phantasy, which is too far-fetched, even though it may be accurately describing Dinescu's not-so-funny original idea), but some of the stuff he says is, alas, pretty accurate. It caught my eye, though, that he says Iliescu was born in Moldavia. Now, not only is this wrong, but I'm gonna have to agree with Anittas' thoughts on some issues, and list the First Secretary of Iaşi Region among those people from "our side" whose work in Moldavia effectively dragged the region down. Though, since the Moldavian electorate still found him so enticing after all, it has to be their fault as well :). Dahn (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm positive that, in no time, you'll be one of the most valuable DYKers around - and don't worry about the leads: people there rarely object to the hook not being interesting enough, and only do it for entries that really aren't interesting (stuff of the "that cats are felines" type). Something tells me you'll never have to deal with criticism of this sort - things that are interesting to you are bound to be interesting the world over.
I agree with what you say on Judt. Btw, I did some search just for fun, and I came up with this article, signed by the notorious D.E. (?). After reading it, I'm sticking with the view that Plai cu Boi is much more respectable and likable than Ziua :). Dahn (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, Hef is... Let me start over. But Dinescu... No, wait, I got nothing :). I only read that magazine a few times, and was not really impressed. I don't think they publish it anymore, though. I think it's why he started editing something called Aspirina Săracului (which was just awful, and so not clever). I think he's done with that as well, and now he's just around to enlighten an unusually clueless Stelian Tănase on live telly. That show is pretty boring too, and one gets easily fed up with the overuse of words and concepts of the kind Geo Bogza wanted to have rehabilitated.

On CNM: there are even more here. (I find this one to be the coolest of the bunch.) An article is a to do, but, I personally don't yet get the tingle to start it. Dahn (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maria Tanase

Thanks for helping out on the Maria Tanase page. StereoDevil (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I will check it out. My wife is Romanian so I think she would know more than me. I have read alot but my Romanian is not up to a level where I can read alot yet. It will be at some point. Also Nigel Kennedy has a song called "Tribute to Maria Tanase" on the album East Meets West. StereoDevil (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fsol

Hello Turgidson. No problem for the ref on king Michael. I don't particularly have many sources on the matter, but I am interested in reading more. Could you give me the Daily Telegraph link? Thank you in advance.--Fsol (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Anonimu is banned from editing Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee for a period of one year, to run concurrently with the existing indefinite community ban. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael I of Romania

Original research/synthesis, Weasel

Turgidson, please, justify your tags, as per my invite of a couple of days ago. My acceptance of your tags was conditional upon your proving them using the WP rules for these tags. If in three days you don't justify them with arguments here, I will rescind my acceptance and delete your tags. Thank you! Lil' mouse (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 18 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catherine Caradja, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 07:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Award

BoNM - Romania.png Romanian Barnstar of National Merit
You are hereby awarded this "Romanian Barnstar of National Merit" for your vast contributions on Romania and its people. I really liked the superb quality of your latest Did you know...? article on Catherine Caradja. Keep up the good work.--Riurik(discuss) 05:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mal au Coeur

"Sickness of the heart" would certainly correspond to "Malincuore", but as you are probably aware, literal translations often ignore the subtleties and idioms in different languages. My rudimentary abilities in French has always associated Mal au coeur with motion sickness. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's one possible meaning. But I think Ça me fait mal au coeur mostly means "This makes me sick to my stomach," which is usually interpreted non-literally. Turgidson (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the Polish, "Jadę do Rygi"? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Not the foggiest. Turgidson (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
For the record, neither am I. Doesn't seem to be very popular anywhere ([3]).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Who said anything about popularity? Unfortunately you rely on Google hits as a large source of getting your information. Thanks for the links. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It might be insulting to a Latvian. Personally I find Riga to be an exceptionally beautiful city, and by all means worthwhile travelling to. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Dan & Thurgidson, Yes, one of the meanings of "mal au cœur" is associated with "motion sickness", as in "being sick at one's stomach", which in fact has nothing to do with the heart. But that's the way popular expressions go! However, "mal au cœur" has additional meanings, one of them being a physical "pain of the heart" due to heart disease ("maladie de cœur"), for instance; however, the popular expression "mal au cœur" used in the French language conveys a sense of sadness. Par exemple, when learning of something sad, one would say: "Oh! ça me fait mal au cœur!" The expression can be compared to the one in English, "it breaks my heart" with its French counterpart, "ça me brise le cœur".

Frania W. (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Turgdison, you wrote me: "I agree this expression can have the alternate meaning you mention. But, when it refers to something sad, I think more of the latter expression you mention, ça me brise le cœur, which I think is completely unambiguous. At any rate, why are we talking about this right now? I say, let's think instead of Joy to the World — I wish you a Joyeux Noël! -- Turgidson (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frania_Wisniewska"

"ça me fait mal au cœur": We are talking about this right now because I just happened to fall upon the subject you & Dan were discussing!

On the scale of sadness, "ça me fait mal au cœur" is one or several degrees below "ça me brise le cœur", it really is the difference between being sad & being brokenhearted.

As far as being ambiguous or not, it all depends of the context. When a French person says "ça me fait mal au cœur", everyone knows whether that person is sad or sick at the stomach.

Joyeux Noël!

Frania W. (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Toma

It seems that we were out of sync for the past days- I had a bit of wiki-fatigue. Let me say that is a very interesting find, and a great job adding it in; even though I did not have the slightest idea who Toma was (your links were a lot of help in this respect). Not a Trotskyist, apparently, though the possibility that many people in the PSD were covert ones could prove me wrong. On the notability issue; I'd say it's borderline. Meaning that I think he could have his own article, but not knowing if it'll stand the test of time - as we stand, a CfD looks to be in the cards. But I'm sure I've seen some critical commentary on his work while flipping through the pages of some book, so I'll keep my eyes open in case we revive this possibility. If we do get an article one way or another, we should perhaps remember to add him here.

I was inspired by something you said the other day, and I'm currently cooking up an article that will hopefully cover an important gap. I also got hold of a scanner, so I might be able to come up with some nice presents for various articles. Dahn (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if my own contributions count (originally, I was just trying to expand it enough so that I could squeeze in the info on Rakovsky and Istrati - come to think of it, my New Years' resolution should be to take the Istrati article to a better level). I only skimmed the Institute for info so far, but I don't see any reason not to use it, and plenty of reasons to do so. In the meantime, I have also saved as a doc an expansion on Titel Petrescu that I'll hopefully have saved in mainspace come January.
In the meantime, I'm trying not to get sucked into ro:wiki. Did you perchance notice that the administrator who started the vote there blocked me twice for imaginary offenses? It's hard to track down, but the whole deal actually relates to a neofascist site, managed by David Duke, that ro:wiki kept using as a source (you actually commented on it at some point, when a user kept pushing it here). The coterie there thinks I've overstayed my welcome, but this should fit in nicely with the other sinister problems ro:wiki still has, and, as you may have seen, I'm seriously considering having stewards look into what's going on there and because of whom. Dahn (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I shall revisit those topics and answer tonight, or, in the worst case scenario, sometime tomorrow (I pretty much have to run now). Though I'm sure I'm going to be around for the coming days (and something tells me I'll be seeing you around as well), any holiday schedule is bound to have its unexpected events, so I don't want to miss my opportunity to wish you

A MERRY CHRISTMAS!

while it's still something in the future. See you soon, Dahn (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry!

User:Piotrus and friends, in the midsts of Wigilia, wish you to enjoy this Christmas Eve!

Merry Xmas

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --R O A M A T A A | msg  17:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Stuff

Interestingly, I myself had little idea of what that site was all about until a couple of weeks ago, when some google hits for rather awful things returned altermedia results over and over. There was a long and unnerving discussion about the site being kept as a reference on ro:wiki, during which time it turned out that the branch lacks even the most elementary checks and balances, and that some users (some of whom contribute to altermedia...) and an admin love to see it that way (because they don't need anti-Romanians to come and boss them around, because "less talk, more action" and other such nonsense). This despite ro:wiki having worn thin the patience of many reliable contributors, and despite it being a likely subject for serious scrutiny by the entire community.

The moment I looked into what altermedia was all about, I did some searching into what others think about it. This was pretty hard: while blogs and mailing lists (con and, alas, pro) don't get enough of it, few reliable sources mention it at all - I listed them on WP:RS, and they are actually all pretty reliable. In the debate on ro:wiki, there was no single reliable source that could be said to support altermedia. This German local government link (indeed, no "land" in that word!), which I had noticed but for some reason left aside during one of my searches, was actually dug up by a user on ro:wiki (i.e.: the user who was twice blocked for imaginary offenses by the same guy who implied I was "anti-Romanian" and then blocked me - incidentally, the same guy who started the desysoping vote and the same guy who came over here to "complain" about you "standing up for salute", and the same guy who republished trolling aimed at me because, unlike all other users, he enjoys "satire"). Credit is due to him, as all I did was to review what it was saying from notes he left on ro:wiki.

On the other hand, this altermedia thing is just the tip of pile on ro:wiki, and I do not know if any one person actually has the time and energy to deal with at least the most serious issues. What I think is in order is a serious reevaluation of goals, means, and contributions altogether. I'm not afraid to say that this should imply that not only the persons pushed for desysoping by one fella should actually stay, but that the structure should seriously question the status of many other administrators - first and foremost, the guy who started the vote, who has completely disqualified himself for the job, by showing that he and wikipedia's principles are diametrically opposed.

As a side note, consider picking up the user name of the one guy who objected to my rationale on the WP:RS noticeboard, type it alongside the word "altermedia", and enjoy the finds.

In all honesty, I have never heard the "lying eyes" expression. It's definitely funny, and, if Pryor is the source, it's much funnier than a lot/most of the stuff he came up with (another reason to suspect that it predates his career...). All I could find, in the meantime, is Who you guna believe? Me, or your lyin' eyes?, a song by this band (never heard of them either). Notice the alternative spelling, if we can trust our lying eyes, that is. What that got me thinking is that they might have covered an older song... and we're back where we started.

The Eagles... Like The Dude himself, I always had something personal against that band, probably because they would not stop playing their song during virtually all national television intermissions between 1990 and 1995. And when they stopped doing that, it was just in time for Vama Veche to cover their song... Dahn (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

About the main issue: sure, we can pick it up at any future point; I just wanted to give you some of the details into how we got to this stage.
I give you that: Blazing Saddles was very entertaining (I think I have watched it seven times in one month, because that's how they used to air it on TCM - and I never was tired of it, except for the parts that are tiring every time around). I actually did not know Pryor was behind it... I mostly know him by his endless stand-up shows and that awful film in which he was blind and Gene Wilder was deaf (or the other way, I forget).
Yes, the expression sure seems notable - it's just that I never heard it before. And, bien sur, I don't issue this statement to have it turn into a yardstick :). In fact, you could consider starting an article about it.
When it comes to the equivalent... no, not far-fetched, but you should see what they actually came up with. Mureşan, who, as you may remember, negotiated the whole deal, went on national tv to ask us all how do we know it was a bribe, because it could easily have been something else. "Let's wait for justice to have its say", with the spurious implication that by watching something on tv we all become judges... The PNL as a whole, and then all but two parties, took up this defense, and "no more trials in front of live cameras" was the mot du jour. Bah... something tells me they're all going down in a blaze of orangey glory come the next elections, so they might as well try their best.
"Hotel California"? Hm, no, not really. It would be an okay song, I guess, but it was way to overplayed - and it's just so, well, mariachi at its core... a sound I don't really dig. Dahn (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Holodomor denial

Like to say I respect the way you edit. Anything you suggest for the time article pleas do. I just pulled it off the Russian Wiki article. Oh and Merry Xmas Bandurist (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I also appreciate your copyediting and the referenced info you added. However, I removed the grisly image. First, there are questions about it authenticity as the claim is often made that those are images from 1921. But even if authentic, the images would not make the topic better known to readers for reasons I explained in the summary. Let's agree on keeping our readers informed rather than shocked. TIA for your understanding. --Irpen 04:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I won't insist, unless other users agree it's appropriate. But I found the pic in another article, and it is linked to Joseph Stalin, Human rights in the Soviet Union, Starvation, Genocides in history. Why assume the readers of those 4 articles have a stronger stomach than the ones reading the Holodomor article(s)? This is not an easy subject to read or talk about -- absolutely granted that -- but let's keep in mind it was infinitely harder for those who lived though that time of tragedy. Maybe we can show an infinitesimal fraction of their fortitude when thinking about their plight? Turgidson (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Those article you mention are not of my primary concern and I cannot argue my point on every issue in every article. While I am not old enough to have lived through this times, this issues are very close to my heart. I would prefer to not discuss this pictures or my personal matters. --Irpen 04:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the Time article. I will try to look at the original. I googled Thomas Walker Russia photographs and came upon this amazing site. Have a look The Stalin Society Bandurist (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Feel free to add and take away what ever you think is necessary. The Stalin Society is amazing. Well written and very convincing in what they include and what they leave out. They certainly aren't dummies. Once again the Ukrainians tend to avoid making comment on those that throw sh...at them. Often many of the salient features can be easily explained, however if one is not versed one cannot answer and few people have the library and the materials at hand to answer many of the more salient features of Ukrainian History. It is true what they say that history is written by the winners, but now with things like wikipedia, the internet one can get resources and friends relatively quickly. I would like to thank you for joining us on this controversial topic. You are one of the voices that can placate the more radical wings that appear when ever a Ukrainian topic comes up. As you can see, there certainly is a lot of activity on the site. I prefer not to argue too much, especially with people who already know me, and who I know will not change their opinion come hell or high water. Anyway I wish you a very good New Year. One fll of good halth and prosperity in all you endevors. 01:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Tilly Aston

Thanks for adding photo to this page. Can you please tell me where you got it from? I did a lot of work on this page a couple of months ago and tried to acquire a photo but with no success. Any help you can give me re locating valid photos would be much appreciated. Cheers Sterry2607 (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. I sorta thought that's what your history meant but just wanted to confirm. I'm amazed, I suppose, that there was a photo of her in such a place. I wonder how they get there. This was one of the photos I asked Vision Australia about...though I was hoping for one of the ones they have of her alone. Anyhow, I didn't know this source existed either so will check it in future too! Finding things in the behind-the-scenes Wikipedia is pretty much a hit and miss affair isn't it. Sterry2607 (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello

Thank you for considering the article about Holodomor Denial for a DYK. Actually, I just started it, but almost all of the actual writing was done by User:Bandurist. That is the user who deserves all the credit for the article.

Horlo (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Come join us on Zaporozhian Cossacks --Bandurist (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I also wish to thank you for your excellent work on that article. Keep it up. Ostap 21:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

email

Check your wikimail. Some strange mischief is afoot. K. Lásztocskatalk 05:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Got your message, thanks. I know what you mean about the dearth of reliable admins in the general Hungary-Romania-Balkans region...there's only one Hungarian admin and he's usually swamped with real-life work; Bogdan appears to be in a similar situation. Actually, it brings to mind an old American saying: "if you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself." Maybe some of us should consider running for admin? I'm sure you could handle the job, Dahn for sure, maybe Biru if he feels up to it (he's tried to run several times but always gets interrupted by some war or another.) I'm busy enough in real life most of the time that I won't seek adminship for myself but would accept a nomination, and if only István were around more often he might be the best of all of us. Anyway, it might not be worth the trouble, but it never hurts to plant the seed of an idea. :) K. Lásztocskatalk 23:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Polish Universities

Not that I know of, but try asking at WP:PWNB.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)